Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:38:35 10/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2002 at 00:55:20, Matthew Hull wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 20:31:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On October 14, 2002 at 20:11:58, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On October 14, 2002 at 19:25:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On October 11, 2002 at 23:26:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>You keep bringing this up, so here's a challenge: >>>>> >>>>>Formulate a rule (or rules) governing opening book knowledge. The rule has to >>>>>be fair >>>>>to both players (computer and human) and the rule _must_ be enforcable or it >>>>>will be >>>>>useless. >>>>> >>>>>What would you like to see and why? >>>>>\ >>>> >>>>First of all I know that I can't formulate such rules. I see you already in the >>>>starting blocks to prove the impossibility. Just the same debate we had in the >>>>topic about the prevention of cheating. >>>> >>>>Let me make a little proposal. Why we together couldn't find a solution? This is >>>>not a court room. Why do you want to work against solutions? >>>> >>>>Another point: why is it so difficult to understand the strength of a concept >>>>that says, let's find a solution for a honest CC. Without all the fishy tricks. >>>>A ouple of hours ago I read a quote from Feng Hsu who said naively that chess >>>>should well be about some secrecy on both sides... >>> >>>there is nothing wrong with this. his quote was IIRC that a computer-human match >>>should be like a human-human match, with some "secrets for both sides". what he >>>means is that in a normal human-human match, the opponents prepare for the match >>>in secret, then show up and try to surprise their opponent. like kramnik playing >>>the berlin defence against kasparov in their match. >>>that is what he meant, and that is perfectly ok. >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >> >>But that is not ok if we are talking about little Fritz vs Kramnik or DB2&team >>against Kasparov. NB that the conditions enforced by Kramnik were a consequence >>out of the events in the Kasparov event. > > > >It has always seemed to me that the objections to the DB2/kasparov match were >not reasonable, and that the current match conditions were an attempt to correct >a problem that never existed in the first place. As a result, the attempts to >fix a non-existant problem has resulted in a ridiculous match that no one is >happy with (except maybe me. Poetic justice.). Ultimately, comparisons of the >DB2 match and the DF match will reveal that DB's power was truely scary and DF's >was not. Kasparov was frightened by DB2 (and for good reason). Kramnik is not >afraid of DF. Kasparov will not be afraid of his next computer opponent. > >As for everyone else, at least one programmer in these pages is so frightened of >DB2, that he is in a state of complete denial. No amount of reasoning can move >him. Even if he hears the awful truth from the designer himself, he will not >believe it. > >Additionally, the lamentations over "hype" and "show" seem to be lacking of the >familiar ring of truth. These events are certainly no worse than the dreadful >antics of a misanthrope like Fischer, or any of the other disgusting human >behaviors found at a typical tournament. As if human chess matches are some >great scientific endeavor. They're not. It's a struggle. A fight. There's >preparation, psychology, annoyances, and luck all in the mix. It's the fog of >war. Why should one whine and complain about it. Are not all such objections >just psychological defense mechanisms to combat the spectre of dashed >expectations? > >My theory is this: Some (not all) owners and programmers of commercial chess >programs, especially the "contenders", have an inordinate affinity towards the >programs and programmers in which they've staked their monetary and intellectual >capital. The resultant aspiration to own a peice of, or have a part in some >ultimate success are threatened by a big organization like IBM, who is not going >to make an accessible product for them (and therefore not include them in their >success), but instead wants to spend unthinkable sums of money to claim the >"prize" for their own selfish marketing ends. This is seen as unfair and a >sullying of the supposed purity of science or sport or whatever is decent. > >When this organization actually wins where others did not, then it must have >been a cheat, a disgraceful marketing ploy, a travesty of science. The old >defense mechanism of demonization becomes the accepted resort. > >None of this is objective scientific thinking. It is subjective, because it is >clouded by some kind of stake in the outcome. > >The objective, scientific reality is this: It was a legal match of chess. You >came, you played and you lost. Tough break. Better luck next time. Get over >it. > > >Scientifically, >Matt Cool article! I'm still clapping my hands, so I can't write too much at the moment. But one little spot of vinegar: you are confusing Shakespeare with science! Science is also general but more often specifical and the mistakes of the DB2 team were simply too great to forget. I'm not even talking about IBM. If I could read such postings every day then my English could improve. Thanks so far Rolf Tueschen on behalf of Bobby F Vincent D Feng H Frans M Garri K Vladimir K Bob H and many more, I hope I didn't forget someone > > >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>But I disagree. I hope you can follow when I say that you won't beat the >>>>creativity of human players with all your machines. Yes? So why not accept that >>>>you are not there to invent sophisticated tricks to beat human players with your >>>>machines but that you should your work as scientists. I'm talking to you as well >>>>as Hsu! >>>> >>>>Somehow it seems to me that you had a perverted understanding of science. >>>> >>>>You should develop machines that are sophisticated at chess, but not >>>>sophisticated tricks to psych out human opponents! Tell me what you would reply. >>>> >>>>I think we must make a real ethical revolution in CC to stop that nonsense about >>>>the dream that suddenly 1800 or weaker operators or programmers (I'm not talking >>>>about you in person) could bet super GM just with the support of machines. That >>>>is not the concept of CC I would prefer. Because then we are right back in the >>>>middle of new cheats! I think Hsu made an beautiful unconscious confession. He >>>>likes the secrecy and the tricks... >>>> >>>>But as we could see in Bahrain, the whole hyperbole is unbelievable. Because >>>>Fritz can't play such positions yet Kramnik presented in games 1 to 4. And >>>>probably DB2 wouldn't have done better. >>>> >>>>Let me make this very clear. Say, we had a really strong chess playing machine >>>>in 20 years - - _then_ that monster would hopefully have a few tricks on its own >>>>to play a match against the human Wch. Know what I mean? But today I do not want >>>>to see one Hsu or one Friedel play such tricky games. That's ridiculous in my >>>>eyes. So I hope I could make clear what I want. I do also dream of a fantastic >>>>computer playing fantastic chess. But I detest tricky operators using some >>>>tricks to psych out the GM. That might be real fun for them personally, but this >>>>is not what I expected from scientists. >>>> >>>>Could we agree so far and find new solutions for definitions how machines should >>>>be supported along the FIDE rules? Or is it impossible to talk with you because >>>>you just prefer to fight the old stuff again when you were a young student and >>>>had the impression that you had to find certain rules made on the CC level >>>>alone. If you want to cooperate then you should think about the FIDE rules. And >>>>then it's not really a help if you or other people try to define me as the >>>>representative of some evil force who would like to harm CC... >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.